pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Huge Coup for DT?  (Read 4763 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

WarrenPrice

« on: November 01, 2012, 13:51 »
0
Check out the current Featured Photographer at DT:
Quite a port and years of experience:
http://www.dreamstime.com/Americanspirit_info

But... he doesn't seem to be exclusive.  Are you familiar with Joseph Sohm?



« Reply #1 on: November 01, 2012, 14:10 »
0
He's uploaded 10K+ files since January 2012? Some sort of special arrangement must have been made for him - no 140 a week for him.

Seems as though there's a good collection of editorial images, but no, I haven't heard of him. His web site lists a very impressive list of images he's taken though.

« Reply #2 on: November 01, 2012, 14:45 »
+1
Define coup?

Yes, his work is outstanding.  But is it exclusive to DT?  Doesn't look like it.  And does it sell well?  1,596 downloads since January isn't that impressive a number, suggesting the port isn't in all that much demand, as good as it is. 

Of course, it's all editorial, and by definition that limits its appeal to buyers.  But to say this is a coup for DT implies it's a game-changer for them, and if there's not exclusivity and the sales aren't too huge, that's hardly the case here.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #3 on: November 01, 2012, 14:48 »
0
Define coup?

Yes, his work is outstanding.  But is it exclusive to DT?  Doesn't look like it.  And does it sell well?  1,596 downloads since January isn't that impressive a number, suggesting the port isn't in all that much demand, as good as it is. 

Of course, it's all editorial, and by definition that limits its appeal to buyers.  But to say this is a coup for DT implies it's a game-changer for them, and if there's not exclusivity and the sales aren't too huge, that's hardly the case here.

That is an interrogative title.  Thanks for the definitive response.   ::)

« Reply #4 on: November 01, 2012, 14:56 »
+1
He's on SS too so no big coup for DT;

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-978674p1.html

I have to say I'm quite surprised that the self-styled "America's Photo Historian" is selling his wares for microstock pennies ... just like us.
« Last Edit: November 01, 2012, 14:59 by gostwyck »

« Reply #5 on: November 01, 2012, 15:15 »
0
... I have to say I'm quite surprised that the self-styled "America's Photo Historian" is selling his wares for microstock pennies ... just like us.

Exactly, what a shocker. Now we have to wait for some old trad shooters who still haven't heard of DIGITAL SLRs who will scream: "You're ruining our business".

LOL.

« Reply #6 on: June 14, 2013, 00:21 »
0
don't ask me why but I ended up on this topic (its "old" from November 2012)

so I decided to pop a question, I had the idea that we couldn't do composites or major edits on editorial work, am I wrong?

« Reply #7 on: June 14, 2013, 07:19 »
+1
If you take President Obama and isolate him (with halo) and put him in front of different backgrounds.....
Then it is not editorial, and shouldnt there be a model release then?

Or does it fall under the celebrity rules. That they are always fair prey.
Now, one thing is to put him in front of flags and American things. But any background could be applied......

Is that not a problem?

« Reply #8 on: June 14, 2013, 10:17 »
0
don't ask me why but I ended up on this topic (its "old" from November 2012)

so I decided to pop a question, I had the idea that we couldn't do composites or major edits on editorial work, am I wrong?

I think buyers have to assume 'editorial' on microstock means it has been edited, unless definitively stated like on Alamy.  Some news agencies would have problems using these shots.

« Reply #9 on: June 14, 2013, 10:21 »
0
don't ask me why but I ended up on this topic (its "old" from November 2012)

so I decided to pop a question, I had the idea that we couldn't do composites or major edits on editorial work, am I wrong?

I think buyers have to assume 'editorial' on microstock means it has been edited, unless definitively stated like on Alamy.  Some news agencies would have problems using these shots.

I don't edit editorial (pretty much is the conversion from RAW to JPG), the max I do is removing sensor spots

ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #10 on: June 14, 2013, 13:38 »
-1
On SS and many other sites the only editing allowed to be done to EDITORIAL is to crop or make an exposure adjustment!

It must remain the way it was shot at the time you shot it and those are the rules.

Quote
Image Manipulation:

Editorial images should never be digitally altered. Scaling and cropping slightly is acceptable (sometimes you must crop a newsworthy editorial image), but you should never add or remove elements to make an image sell more, such as adding smoke at a protest or removing background elements.

What you could do simply in a darkroom is generally acceptable with Photoshop. However, changing key elements of the image to your advantage is not ethical. The best editorial image is the full frame image. If you must crop it, the message of the image must not change at all.  It is of utmost importance to maintain the editorial integrity of the image in every way.

« Reply #11 on: June 19, 2013, 02:36 »
+3
If you take President Obama and isolate him (with halo) and put him in front of different backgrounds.....
Then it is not editorial, and shouldnt there be a model release then?

Or does it fall under the celebrity rules. That they are always fair prey.
Now, one thing is to put him in front of flags and American things. But any background could be applied......

Is that not a problem?

You're misinterpreting the nature of the editorial license. It is a restriction on commercial usage, not a guarantee that the image meets strict news-gathering standards of truthfulness. Editorial departments have used montages to illustrate stories pretty much since they began publishing photos. Nobody would be surprised to see a montage of Obama on a US flag in an article about American politics or on the front of Time or Newsweek.  Editorial departments also use straightforward faked-up advertising pictures of smiling 18-year-old-girl-doctor-with-patient to illustrate medical stories from time to time, as well as manipulated hdr landscapes for travel features.

ShadySue

« Reply #12 on: June 19, 2013, 02:53 »
0
don't ask me why but I ended up on this topic (its "old" from November 2012)

so I decided to pop a question, I had the idea that we couldn't do composites or major edits on editorial work, am I wrong?

I think buyers have to assume 'editorial' on microstock means it has been edited, unless definitively stated like on Alamy.  Some news agencies would have problems using these shots.

They shouldn't assume that on iStock where we're not supposed to remove anything other than sensor spots, e.g. bird poo, chewing gum on pavements ... etc

lisafx

« Reply #13 on: June 19, 2013, 18:40 »
0
If you take President Obama and isolate him (with halo) and put him in front of different backgrounds.....
Then it is not editorial, and shouldnt there be a model release then?

Or does it fall under the celebrity rules. That they are always fair prey.
Now, one thing is to put him in front of flags and American things. But any background could be applied......

Is that not a problem?

You're misinterpreting the nature of the editorial license. It is a restriction on commercial usage, not a guarantee that the image meets strict news-gathering standards of truthfulness. Editorial departments have used montages to illustrate stories pretty much since they began publishing photos. Nobody would be surprised to see a montage of Obama on a US flag in an article about American politics or on the front of Time or Newsweek.  Editorial departments also use straightforward faked-up advertising pictures of smiling 18-year-old-girl-doctor-with-patient to illustrate medical stories from time to time, as well as manipulated hdr landscapes for travel features.

Excellent explanation.  I don't shoot editorial, so it doesn't really matter to me, but I was also confused on this point and you've cleared it up for me :)

« Reply #14 on: June 19, 2013, 18:55 »
0
no it is not. There is more to it.

The end user can do things with a photo and place it in a content.
Like a newspaper article and The President in front of the flags.
It it is within the newspapers responsibiity.

But can you imagine, what kind of usages are possible with these photos.
They can show up at loo paper in Afghanistan.

Then suddently the provider of the photos has a responsibility.


« Reply #15 on: June 21, 2013, 03:24 »
+1
no it is not. There is more to it.

The end user can do things with a photo and place it in a content.
Like a newspaper article and The President in front of the flags.
It it is within the newspapers responsibiity.

But can you imagine, what kind of usages are possible with these photos.
They can show up at loo paper in Afghanistan.

Then suddently the provider of the photos has a responsibility.

If the picture is sold under an "editorial use only" license then commercial use for toilet paper would be a violation of the terms.

The point about non-manipulation of news images is simply that newspapers don't want people complaining that an image was faked for propaganda purposes and is not a true historical record of the event.  However, despite the iStock rules that Sue provided and despite Alamy's "has this been digitally altered?" tick-box and editor who chose to rely on the veracity of a stock photo from an unknown source for a sensitive article would be a complete idiot.

To some extent, the rules for news photographers are silly because, as Sue said, they can't clone out a piece of chewing gum from the pavement but it is perfectly legitimate to remove it by cropping the photo.  Subject selection and cropping are fabulous tools for the photographer-propagandist, but that's another issue.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with offering to sell a montage to the media on an editorial licesne as long as it is clear that it is a graphical design and is not part of the historical record.

Since there is no way those pictures can be sold on a commercial license the only way they can be sold is as editorial and I think iStock is a bit silly to cut itself off from that entire genre (bearing in mind, as I said earlier, than no sane editor is going to put his neck on the block by insisting that an iStock image is an unmanipulated record, regardless of what rules iS makes).



« Reply #16 on: June 21, 2013, 04:28 »
+1
That makes sense.
Im going to photograph the queen soon, and I think I will not distribute those pictures via micros.

Uncle Pete

« Reply #17 on: June 21, 2013, 16:30 »
0
BT wrote it, but here's the answer:

news-gathering standards of truthfulness
are not the same thing as "Editorial"

And for the other question, yes a public figure gives up some rights to their image and privacy.

Last of all. never confuse the laws and microstock rules as being the same, similar or derived from the first. Micro makes up their own rules. Some may be backed by laws, but most are in spite of the laws that would allow use or protect our right to publish and resell images.


« Reply #18 on: June 21, 2013, 18:42 »
0
Quite so. And remember, too, that while an American court might exonerate the usage of an image of a monarch, there is always the risk that if you live in that monarch's domain, the legal restrictions may be far more draconian. In some places, insulting a monarch can be regarded quite seriously (ask some poets in the Middle East about that).

ShadySue

« Reply #19 on: June 21, 2013, 18:50 »
0
Also, there don't appear to be any restrictions as to the manipulations which can be made to an iStock image by the end-user. I find that worrying, though I guess they couldn't ban it altogether as that might prevent e.g. type being overlaid on a photo.
However, I guess is someone manipulates an editorial photo in an unacceptable way, it would logically be more their fault, or the fault of the agency for not banning it, than the fault of the photographer. But the Law isn't always logical.

« Reply #20 on: June 21, 2013, 19:07 »
0
There are restrictions: "Demeaning usage and identity theft".

Actually I have somtimes wondered...
I have a picture of an ant, that sells well.
But it might be for ant poison purposes.

That is demeaning use isnt it?




ruxpriencdiam

    This user is banned.
  • Location. Third stone from the sun
« Reply #21 on: June 22, 2013, 09:50 »
0
the iStock rules that Sue provided
I dont see them????

« Reply #22 on: June 22, 2013, 16:43 »
+1
.... on iStock where we're not supposed to remove anything other than sensor spots, e.g. bird poo, chewing gum on pavements ... etc


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
2864 Views
Last post August 06, 2008, 04:56
by leaf
3 Replies
1557 Views
Last post July 01, 2010, 10:38
by vonkara
8 Replies
3478 Views
Last post February 14, 2011, 10:26
by mtkang
25 Replies
5134 Views
Last post April 04, 2012, 03:29
by Microbius
17 Replies
15255 Views
Last post December 29, 2012, 21:54
by Noedelhap

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results